Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

and you believe atheist claims are true?

An atheist makes no claims, only finds the theist claims unconvincing.
I personally do make a claim that gods are likely to be human inventions. As such I try to back that up with proof. But it is not a requirement of atheism to make that claim, it is entirely sufficient to just lack a belief in gods.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Absolutely.

So you believe in atheism. Does that not require faith?

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

An atheist makes no claims, only finds the theist claims unconvincing.

Unconvincing, but not absolutely unconvincing so the probability of being wrong is accepted. Correct?

muppeteer wrote: »

I personally do make a claim that gods are likely to be human inventions. As such I try to back that up with proof. But it is not a requirement of atheism to make that claim, it is entirely sufficient to just lack a belief in gods.

Probablity, no evidence, no conclusive proof, so faith is required. Correct?

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

So you believe in atheism. Does that not require faith?

Do you believe in aunicornism? Does that not require faith?
Or is it that you simply lack a belief in unicorns so do not have to have faith that aunicornism is true?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

So you believe in atheism. Does that not require faith?

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking "Do you believe (what you wrote is true)?". Which I do.

Faith in one's own opinion or convictions is not the same as faith in a deity or faith in atheism. Again, the dictionary definition of atheism is:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I believe there is no god or gods. Therefore, I am an atheist (a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings). I don't have faith that there is no god or gods. I simply don't have faith that there are.

It's a famous quote, but "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Saying an atheist has to have faith in atheism is like saying that someone's hobby is not collecting stamps.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Unconvincing, but not absolutely unconvincing so the probability of being wrong is accepted. Correct?

Absolutely correct. Some degree of agnosticism about everything is required.

Probablity, no evidence, no conclusive proof, so faith is required. Correct?

Probability and assessment of the evidence coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. Conclusive 100% proof is impossible so we make do with our imperfect assessment of the evidence.
Faith is making no assessment of evidence and it is not even required to do so when you use faith, so the concepts are very different.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

And what is the criminals responsibility? To remain a criminal a risk punishment or to cease and desist?

The criminal doesn't have any responsibilities, he just sits there until he is told to get up.

Festus wrote: »

Disobedience is disobedience.

Disobedience and the act of punishing disobedience are two different things.

Festus wrote: »

It is the souls responsibility to exercise free will and make that choice.

It is not the souls responsibility to punish itself if it disobeys God.

Festus wrote: »

It is a choice and many choose it.

No one chooses it. It is doubtful the human mind could even comprehend infinite suffering to the level that the person would even be aware of what they were choosing. With no comprehension of what you are choosing you cannot consent to it. Not that it matters because humans do not have the power to transport themselves to hell anyway.

If you need a real world analogy, I cannot simply walk into a prison, sit down in a cell and say "I've been bad, I'm going to stay here for a while". I can no more send myself to prison than I can send myself to hell. I must be sent to prison by a judge, and I must be sent to hell by God. I have no control over that process.

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

Absolutely.

So you have absolute beliefs?
You just stated that in relation to your views on atheism.

Is that somehow less plausible than belief

Plausibility = belief so that is a bit circular.

in a God who created a man and woman and put them beside a Tree of Knowledge where they were tempted into eating an apple by a talking snake which caused them to be sinners and cast out of Eden

It is called allegory. do you also believe protons are always red balls with a plus on them? Or might you accept that is a drawing about a concept of o pôsitively charged particle?
Or what about "fields" or "currents" they are explained in terms of open spaces and rivers but that does not mean magnetism is a grassy meadow filled with talking snakes or not nor does it mean "flow" is water rushing past -but i think you get the idea. Have you ever heard someone a "snake in the grass" ? Did the person mean they were actually a snake?

and the best way God could fix this was to impregnate a virgin with his son who was part of him and have his son/him die for those sins and come back from the dead three days later etc etc.

the only way god coud be a person is without original sin. If you dont understand that then i cant really help you. One way to look on the christ/ Jesus being god thing is a way around the 3but oit is easy for you you are god" excuse. If jesus is a man and lives exactly as a man and dos not use god powers in any way to avoid that an:or advance himself/ cheat then the excuse is not valid.

Atheism is exactly what it says in the book (dictionary, not Bible). It is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I don't believe in any gods, therefore I am an atheist. I didn't choose atheism, it's just something I am as a result of not having a belief in a deity. It requires no faith, because it is what occurs due to not having faith in gods.

Exactly! it requires you have have something - no faith in god or gods. but you already said you do believe in absolutes e.g. there is absolutely no god
You belief in that absolute

And as for science, there is no 'faith' required.

that would be your view. the Philosophy of science might differ from your view.
Unless you believe ther is only one absolute philosophy of science which says that!
In which case you fall into the logical positivist conundrum. How do you verify the verification principle?

These things are tested and continuously revised as knowledge improves. Nothing is taken at it's word. It is all continuously tested and examined, studied by many people using knowledge gained from other such studies. And if it is later found out to be wrong, it is adjusted accordingly.

Oh so now your absolute isnt absolute after all? it may in fact be wrong? But when you find it is wrong you propose another absolute to replace it!
so you still have absolutes.
the idea of constantly getting better empirical measuerment by refinement is inadequate because
1. It is just that an admission that the claim is not absolutely measurable.
2. the Planck limit of not being able to measure past a certain point.

I can trust modern science because it doesn't require faith or a belief.

and Philosophy of science would say science modern or ancient -frankly whats the difference? is rooted in Greek philosophy as is theology. It may requie belief . rumling out belief altogether is ruling out the science of some of the worlds best scientists and they may even be atheist scientists but they have faith in something they cant prove.

It is purely based on the evidence available.

No it isnt! That is empiricism which is one element of the philosophy of science/. There is also teleology, onthology and epistemology for example.

Science today is hugely different to what science was 500 years ago.

Not really. Measurement is more accurate; the philosophy is much the same whether the hypo deductive method or error analysis or logical proofs. Technology has also become sophisticated but that isnt science.

Is religion? Has the Bible changed?

christianity isnt just the Bible. and yes theology has changed and/or advanced. all sorts of new technlogies prompted theology to develop views on the body cloning abortion information security ethics etc.

Tim Minchin says it best:
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

Science also depends on theory . Observation may be used to confirm theory. the concept may come first and the observation confirm or falsify it.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Probablity, no evidence, no conclusive proof, so faith is required. Correct?

Only in so much as under that definition of "faith" faith is required to believe anything, since there is no conclusive proof for any belief. Which makes the term faith some what irrelevant, if every belief is an act of faith it is impossible to distinguish between having faith and not having faith.

Clearly your religion does not view faith as irrelevant, and regularly talks about how faith is a virtue and those without faith are lost.

So I suspect you don't really believe in your own definition of faith used above.

tommy2bad

Zombrex ;
I must be sent to hell by God. I have no control over that process.

Another theory is that experiencing the presence of God is pleasure to the good people and torment to the bad people, no need for God to send anyone anywhere.
I duno if it makes it better or worse but it offers the hope of redemption in the next life as even the bad people can change if they want to. The bible seems to suggest annihilation for irredeemable bad people so it might not be anything like we can imagine it would be.
I like to think when we meed God the beliver will say "at last, nice to meet you" and the unbeliever will say "so it was you? had me fooled, sorry bout that"
The bad people will be in torment so wont be up to talking :P

himnextdoor

marty1985 wrote: »

I don't think this is true. Perhaps someone can clear it up here, but I'm pretty sure Vatican II was when the current teaching on this was laid out, which goes something like this in a nut shell: salvation can be attained by members of other Christian denominations and members of non-Christian faiths, and people who cannot be blamed for their own ignorance, for lack of a better word.

But from John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

And Peter's commision was to evangelise the Jews, the 'lost sheep of Israel.

Jesus says 'I am the way' and that 'the gate is narrow'.

Matthew 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Surely Jesus will deny Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists alike?

And baptism seems to be a pre-requisite too; from the Catachism: 'The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;'

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, in that case I must have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking "Do you believe (what you wrote is true)?". Which I do.

Faith in one's own opinion or convictions is not the same as faith in a deity or faith in atheism. Again, the dictionary definition of atheism is:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I believe there is no god or gods. Therefore, I am an atheist (a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings). I don't have faith that there is no god or gods. I simply don't have faith that there are.

It's a famous quote, but "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Saying an atheist has to have faith in atheism is like saying that someone's hobby is not collecting stamps.

Do you really believe this rubbish?

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

Only in so much as under that definition of "faith" faith is required to believe anything, since there is no conclusive proof for any belief.

So you agree that atheists rely on faith to believe what they believe regarding God.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Probability and assessment of the evidence coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. Conclusive 100% proof is impossible so we make do with our imperfect assessment of the evidence.

Does that not require a leap of faith?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Probablity, no evidence, no conclusive proof, so faith is required. Correct?

Faith is a lot like gambling isn't it? I wonder what the Bible says about gambling. And wouldn't a loving and caring God be concerned about His precious souls being risked by those who are seduced by mere words from men who dress themselves up and call themselves holy?

Wouldn't Satan be the most likely one to take advantage of that particular weakness in men?

Might I also add; atheism is what occurs either in the absence of indoctrination or where indoctrination has failed.

marty1985

himnextdoor wrote: »

marty1985 wrote: »

I don't think this is true. Perhaps someone can clear it up here, but I'm pretty sure Vatican II was when the current teaching on this was laid out, which goes something like this in a nut shell: salvation can be attained by members of other Christian denominations and members of non-Christian faiths, and people who cannot be blamed for their own ignorance, for lack of a better word.

But from John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

And Peter's commision was to evangelise the Jews, the 'lost sheep of Israel.

Jesus says 'I am the way' and that 'the gate is narrow'.

Matthew 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Surely Jesus will deny Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists alike?

And baptism seems to be a pre-requisite too; from the Catachism: 'The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;'

Someone else will have to give you an answer here. And I don't think Fanny Cradock is a Catholic but I could be mistaken.

By the way if you don't agree with the church's interpretation you could find a Protestant denomination with a more literal understanding of the bible which would suit your arguments more.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Do you believe in aunicornism? Does that not require faith?

Or is it that you simply lack a belief in unicorns so do not have to have faith that aunicornism is true?

Ah, so you believe in unicorns! Excellent, now we are getting somewhere.

Tell me, why do you believe in unicorns? Most people don't and base this belief on faith in the unproveable.

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

If you need a real world analogy, I cannot simply walk into a prison, sit down in a cell and say "I've been bad, I'm going to stay here for a while".

Yes you can. All you have to do is ask. If they say "No" all you have to do is present the evidence of your evil deeds. Then they will let you stay.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

So you agree that atheists rely on faith to believe what they believe regarding God.

I wouldn't.

I would say that atheists are not prepared to rely on the faith of those who believe in God. Atheists require evidence. Faith is about as useful as Monopoly money in Las Vegas to an atheist.

You seem to be having a hard time differentiating between 'belief' and 'disbelief' the latter of which is the atheist position.

Part of the reason that atheists don't believe the Christian description of God is because Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., make similar claims (the one true faith) and on the same basis (faith).

They cannot all be right but they could all be wrong. I think the latter is the most likely but I wouldn't put my eternal soul on it.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think the latter is the most likely but I wouldn't put my eternal soul on it.

You believe you have an eternal soul? Does that belief not require faith?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

You believe you have an eternal soul? Does that belief not require faith?

No. It means I'm not a gambler.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

No. It means I'm not a gambler.

Ah, so you stay in bed all day, waited on hand and foot and place all your faith in a food taster. Interesting.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Do you really believe this rubbish?

Yes. What's your problem with what I've said?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so you stay in bed all day, waited on hand and foot and place all your faith in a food taster. Interesting.

No. Do you see the false conclusions that your logic tends to lead you to.

I'm careful; I constantly check my laces so I don't trip over them.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Yes.

So you do believe all that rubbish. Fascinating! That must require a lot of faith.

Penn wrote: »

What's your problem with what I've said?

Well you implicated yourself as belonging to a system that has a doctrine and a belief and then said you don't have faith. That is self contradictory illogical balderdash.

In short, it was all rubbish.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

No. Do you see the false conclusions that your logic tends to lead you to.

I'm careful; I constantly check my laces so I don't trip over them.

So you don't see getting out of bed to face the day as a gamble then?

Are you confudled?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

Yes.

So you do believe all that rubbish. Fascinating! That must require a lot of faith.

Penn wrote: »

What's your problem with what I've said?

Well you implicated yourself as belonging to a system that has a doctrine and a belief and then said you don't have faith. That is self contradictory illogical balderdash.

In short, it was all rubbish.

Okay, let's just clarify something here, are we discussing atheism or science?

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

Do you believe in aunicornism? Does that not require faith?
Or is it that you simply lack a belief in unicorns so do not have to have faith that aunicornism is true?

You are in danger of a "turtles all the way down" problem.
The question is not whether he does not believe/have faith in atheism/aunicornism based on the lack of a belief in god/unicorns!

the question is what you believe. Do you believe there is no god? do you not have a belief there is a god? do you have either of these beliefs whether or not they are the same thing? If so you have faith in those beliefs.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Faith is a lot like gambling isn't it? I wonder what the Bible says about gambling. And wouldn't a loving and caring God be concerned about His precious souls being risked by those who are seduced by mere words from men who dress themselves up and call themselves holy?

Wouldn't Satan be the most likely one to take advantage of that particular weakness in men?

Might I also add; atheism is what occurs either in the absence of indoctrination or where indoctrination has failed.

so atheists can only be the result of a failed indoctrination or where an inbdoctrination didnt take place? so what happens when the doctrine IS atheism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State atheism is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice

Guess who?... "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."

philologos

Barr125 wrote: »

God cannot be both just AND merciful. Being just means he's treats everyone equal and fairly. Being merciful means he treats everyone with leniency. No one can be both, as if he treats others justly and others mercifully then he is not just, and if he treats everyone mercifully then he cannot be just.

And was Jesus not God, as in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Unless you're using a different definition of God. If so, please could you define what you think He is?

God is both just and merciful. God also does judge everyone entirely fairly. Merciful means that He spares His rightful judgement from us.

We've all failed to follow God's standard. We are all guilty and we are all deserving of His wrath. God has offered us all forgiveness through Jesus' saving death on the cross if we are willing to accept it. That's one standard for all whether rich or poor, influential or not, popular or not, successful by the world's standards or not.

I think Jesus is God, as much as the Spirit and the Father are. Jesus satisfied God's wrath against mankind by coming into the world in human flesh and dying the sinner's death we deserved to die. The death and resurrection of Jesus signify the walk that Christians make in light of Jesus, dying to sin, rising to new life with Him. That's what Christians refer to as being "born again".